Contradictions and their concrete manifestations: an activity ...

Full paper for the 29th EGOS Colloquium, July 4–6, 2013 Sub-theme 50: Activity Theory and Organizations

1

Contradictions and their concrete manifestations: an activity-theoretical analysis of the intra-organizational

co-configuration of open source software

Claudine Bonneau, Ph.D.

Professor, Management and Technology Department, ESG

Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

[email protected]

Introduction Dialectical contradictions, as conceptualized in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT),

can be used fruitfully as an analytical tool in order to study organizational change associated

with the introduction of new technologies (Groleau, Demers, Lalancette, & Barros, 2011).

Drawing from the work done by Engeström and Sannino (2011), this paper aims to contribute

to the operationalization of CHAT contradictions by looking at their concrete manifestations.

Examples from a case study analysis of the implementation of an open source learning

platform (Moodle) in a Canadian university are used to show how the members of this

organization experience the contradictions in their daily work.

The paper starts with a theoretical overview of the contradictions and their manifestations in

order to distinguish CHAT specificities from other applications in organization studies. Then,

examples from the case study are used to show how the primary contradiction between

exchange and use value manifests itself in the form of concrete tensions in each element of

the teachers’ activity system. The secondary, tertiary and quaternary contradictions are also

analyzed as the subjects articulate the social and material specificities of the open source

model to their situated organizational context in order to deal with the tensions they face in

their activity. The challenges and opportunities of using CHAT contradictions as an analytical

framework to study organizational change are then discussed in the conclusion.

mailto:[email protected]


2

1. Bridging CHAT conceptualization of contradictions with the organizational scholarship on paradoxes and conflicts

Several organization scholars share the idea that contradictions are opportunities to change

prevailing practices (for example, see Putnam, 1986). The studies of tensions, dualities, and

paradoxes have indeed grown steadily in the innovation and organizational literature since the

eighties and is still very vivid, as shown by the recent call for papers in Organization Studies

for a special issue on such topic (Erez, Jarvenpaa, Lewis, Smith, & Tracey, 2013). However,

contradictions are not always theoretically defined within that research stream. As a result,

they are often equated with paradox, tension, inconsistency, conflict or dilemma (Engeström

& Sannino, 2011).

According to Groleau et al. (2011), the conceptualization of contradictions inherent in

Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) is different from that found in the literature on

paradoxes and conflicts in that they are more deeply rooted in a sociohistorical context.

Engeström (1987) adapted activity theory to emphasize the collective nature of human

activity and to view organizational change as a sequence of events around which practices are

transformed, following a process of resolution of contradictions. In line with Marxist

dialectics, contradictions are associated to the socioeconomic context of capitalism in which

organizations take place. Contradictions are inherent to all activity systems and explain

historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems (Engeström,

2001). Thus, Engeström is not content with just describing situations of conflict or paradox,

but also invites us to analyze them based on their history throughout time. To do this, he has

described four levels of contradiction to denote different steps in the process of

transformation: primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary, as shown in Figure 1. The

primary contradiction of all activities in capitalist socioeconomic formations is that between

the exchange value and the use value and can be found by focusing on any of the elements of

the subject's work activity. When a good or service is produced, it has a use value: we

produce it because we want to use it ourselves. However, this good or service also has an

exchange value: it is produced because we want to sell it. Engeström claimed that this

contradiction exists in all activity systems in capitalist societies and that it cannot be

eliminated. This primary contradiction conceptualization therefore is above all based on a

critique of the economic dimension specific to the capitalistic system. Hence, it is the

existence of the primary contradiction that distinguishes CHAT from other paradox-based

studies by extending our understanding of local evolving organizational practices within a


3

much larger temporal and spatial realm (Foot & Groleau, 2011). In Figure 1, the tensions

produced by the primary contradiction are illustrated by the number 1, i.e., in each element in

the activity system: subject, object, instruments, community, rules and division of labour.

Figure 1 The four levels of contradictions (Engeström, 1987)

This primary contradiction is latent and manifests itself in secondary contradictions taking the

form of concrete tensions between the constituents of the central activity system. In Figure 1,

the secondary contradictions correspond to number 2, which crops up between activity system

elements. For example, we can see tension between the division of labour and the instruments

when there is a highly hierarchical division of labour that no longer appears to correspond to

the new opportunities made possible in the work place through the use of new tools. Unlike

the primary contradiction, tensions related to secondary contradictions can be resolved by

incorporating new elements into the activity in order to reconfigure it. Therefore,

contradictions can be used as an intervention tool by the researcher who can help the

participants to face the secondary contradictions and collectively find new ways of organizing

their work in order to solve the tensions they experience (Engeström, 2005). To do so, they

borrow means and representations from other activity systems as a way to reconfigure their

own activity and innovate; in other words, subjects use an external system to relieve certain

tensions in their own situation.


4

As new elements are introduced in the activity, tertiary contradictions can arise between the

new and the old elements of the activity. These are represented in Figure 1 by the number 3,

which connects the central activity system in its initial form with its new form, or rather “a

culturally more advanced central activity”. For example, a tertiary contradiction may occur

after a new procedure has been set up should tension exist between it and the old activity

configuration.

Finally, the reconfiguration of the activity system can lead to quaternary contradictions

between the central and the neighbouring activity systems. These neighbouring activity

systems are represented in Figure 1 with triangles called “instrument-producing activity,

subject-producing activity, rule-producing activity and object-activity”. The central activity

system is related with the neighbouring systems that provide the instruments, or rules. For

example, the legislative system, through the laws it enacts, can produce rules for the central

activity system.

To encourage dialogue between activity theorists and organizational scholars, it is necessary

to reinforce the conceptual distinction between contradictions and paradoxes. Though the

historical character of contradictions is not often recognized in the organizational literature as

is the case in activity theory, some scholars interested in organizational paradoxes have

already acknowledged such distinctions. While a contradiction implies a choice between two

mutually exclusive alternatives (Putnam, 1986), the paradox does not offer any choice,

because the two poles constituting the paradox are coexisting and operating simultaneously

(Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Clegg, Cunha, & Cunha, 2002). For instance, Marianne W. Lewis

(2000) studied different organizational paradoxes such as the coexistence of control and

autonomy or the imperative of efficiency versus creativity. She explains that organizational

paradoxes are constituted of interrelated contradictory elements (perspectives, emotions,

messages, demands, interest, practices, needs, objectives, criteria, values, etc.). Managers, for

example, face such competing demands when they are asked to increase efficiency and foster

creativity, build individualistic teams, and think globally while acting locally. Hence,

organizational dynamics can be explained by the coexistence of simultaneous contradictory

pressures.

Paradoxes become visible through interactions and can be reflected in the rules and division

of labour through time. Hatch and Ehrlich (1993) have shown that organizational paradoxes


5

can be located in the humour expressed by actors in their discourse. Indeed, humoristic

remarks can reveal facts regarding more or less visible paradoxical situations characterized by

incongruity or incoherence. For example, an incongruity is identified when an organizational

policy does not correspond to the organization’s requirements or objectives, or when it simply

goes against common sense. Incoherence refers to an illogical or absurd situation. By

reducing social strain, humour allows the paradoxes to make their way into social awareness

where they could eventually become the subject of change efforts. For the researcher, they

say that the actors themselves recognize paradoxes that they are facing, not just to eliminate

them, but also to recognize the positive role that they play.

Many authors consider that paradoxes do not prevent an organization from being effective

(Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Fernández-Alles & Valle-Cabrera, 2006) and that the ability to

embrace multiple orientations at the same time is a core feature of effective innovation

(Garud, Gehman, & Kumaraswamy, 2011). For instance, Hundnes and Meyer studied a

Norwegian telecom company throughout its several reorganizations and found out that the

simultaneous presence of two strategic visions—centralization and decentralization—has

allowed the organization to better adapt to its environment (Hundsnes & Meyer, 2006).

Organizational scholars have also distinguished conflicts from contradictions. The conflict

emerges out of the perpetuation of a proposal to the detriment of other alternatives (Cameron

& Quinn, 1988). Contradictions can therefore be sources of conflicts, but are not the conflict

in itself (Putnam, 1986). The conflict is expressed as a misunderstanding, a disagreement or

diverging points of views and may result in resistance, refusal or rejection. Conflicts can play

a major role in collaboratively solving problems, as long as criticism is directed at the tasks

and not at the individuals (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003). In their collective action model of

institutional innovation, Hargrave and Van de Ven (2006) also consider conflict to be the

main driver of change. It enables the players to confront their oppositions and mobilize to

improve the situation. At times, conflict resolution may come about through compromise: in

other cases, it comes through a critique of the status quo.

Though not anchored in a “CHAT-driven” analysis, the latter examples are not fundamentally

incompatible with this perspective, given that authors distinguish contradictions from

paradoxes and conflicts. Actually, the dialogue between activity theorists and organization

scholars who are studying organizational change through paradoxes and conflicts could be


6

facilitated by a demonstration of the conceptual distinction between contradictions and their

manifestations.

1.1. Contradictions and their manifestations as an analytical framework

Engeström and Sannino (2011) already clarified this distinction by stating that many of the

terms misused as equivalents of contradiction should rather be understood as expression of

contradictions. For instance, if two different priorities or strategies are combined through the

practices of actors, they should not be described as contradictions, but rather as manifestations

of socio-historical contradictions. In their study of a healthcare organization, they identified

four types of discursive manifestations of contradictions: dilemma, conflicts, critical conflict

and double-bind.

Whereas the paradox corresponds to the “two sides of the same coin”, tensions that take the

form of dilemmas are rather difficult choices that lead to selecting one of two alternatives: “A

dilemma is an expression or exchange of incompatible evaluations, either between people or

within the discourse of a single person” (Engeström & Sannino, 2011). The dilemma may be

described as an internal conflict within the employee, who must take on two opposing roles.

For example, managers at a hospital may face daily pressures due to their twofold

responsibility: first of all, they must provide care to patients; secondly, they must reduce the

costs associated with these services.

As we have noted in the previous section, conflicts should not be equated with contradictions,

but rather as manifestations of contradictions. As for the double-bind, Engeström and Sannino

describe it as a specific form of paradox. In the context of work activities, the double-bind

corresponds to situations in which players are in a way caught in a reflexive loop, where they

feel pressured to do something, but feel unable to act accordingly. Regardless of what he

does, the player believes that he did not respond correctly to the request. Thus, completely

logical elements, when taken individually, can become illogical once interrelated. To

eliminate the double bind, the players must be creative by reframing their experience in order

to find a new meaning, so that the opposing poles are no longer in opposition. This is what

Engeström names expansive learning (Engeström, 1987). In other words, the subject “expands

the context” in which he works to go beyond the information provided to him in order to build

a broader scope for his activity. By creating new contexts, he can eliminate the initial

constraints.


7

In short, contradictions must be regarded as sociohistorical dynamics that are behind the

tensions, which can be seen in human activities. In other words, the dilemmas, conflicts and

double-binds that are creating tensions here and now are expressions of contradictions over

time.

According to Engeström and Sannino, a double-bind is a type of paradox that is a

manifestation of a contradiction within the meaning of activity theory. I will take up the same

idea, adding to it that paradox is not a contradiction, but that paradoxes can be manifestations

of contradictions. In the next section, I therefore will use the concept of paradoxes, but also

incongruities, incoherence and dilemmas, as defined earlier in this text, to more specifically

describe the tensions seen in my case study.

2. Operationalizing the contradictions: examples from the case study

The case study took place from 2006 to 2011 and investigated the implementation of an open

source learning content management platform (Moodle) in a Canadian university (referred to

as “the University”). The methodology was based on a participant observation strategy. Data

collection relied on field notes gathered during direct observations, participation in meetings,

training and work sessions and access to internal documentation (usage statistics, meetings

minutes, reports, etc.). I also conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 16

teachers and eight (8) developers employed by the University as information systems and

support personnel.

Since 2007, Moodle has been offered in the University under study as a complement to face-

to-face courses (known as blended learning), allowing teachers to share content, create

learning activities and communicate with their students. Open source software is a computer

program that can be read, modified, reused and redistributed by anyone (Perens, 1999).

Although the new forms of work characterizing open source software development

communities have been widely studied (Miettinen, 2009; von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003),

few researchers have examined how they can inspire new practices in organizations that are

not producing software, but are rather using them to conduct their work activities. Moodle

was installed on University’s Web servers in replacement of WebCT, the proprietary platform

previously used. Public organizations such as educational institutions see open source not


8

only as mean to reduce the technology acquisition and operation costs, but also as an

opportunity to provide a more direct link between design of tools and their uses. Since

changes can be made to the source code, it is possible to accommodate users’ needs that were

not initially planned by the developers, without depending on a proprietary firm.

It is important to specify that my research is not part of an interventionist approach such as

Change Laboratories advanced by Engeström (1987) and colleagues. In fact, I have taken the

route of other researchers who use contradictions as a conceptual framework to guide data

collection and analysis (Groleau et al., 2011). Therefore, the objective is to interpret tensions

observed based on the systemic contradictions in the subjects’ activities. In order to do this, I

became interested in the history to identify the different tensions, that shaped its

transformation over time and to understand how the subjects themselves experience these

tensions. The concepts of paradoxes, incongruities, incoherence and dilemma, as defined

earlier in this text, were more specifically used to define the tensions observed.

Since the activity of teachers cannot be limited to the relationship with their work tools,

expressions of contradictions are seen in the different elements of the teacher activity system,

i.e., their object, tools, their relationships with other members (the community), rules and

division of labour. In the following sub-sections, I will first show how the primary

contradiction appears in certain cases regarding the elements of the teacher activity system by

presenting aspects of their work activity according to the sociohistorical and economic

dynamics that mould their representations and anticipations. By identifying the tensions

initially experienced by subjects, it becomes possible to describe the broader context in which

we can then identify the sources of change that have led to the social and material

reconfiguration of their activities. In this case, we are not talking about an exhaustive survey

of all the tensions in this activity system, but rather an analysis targeting those that hold the

most significance for the subjects, at least the tensions that regularly appear in the discourse

and that are reflected in the actions of the subjects I have observed. I then link the different

points in the transformation process with other levels of contradiction. This exercise has

proven to be especially interesting for identifying tensions that could have been resolved by

introducing Moodle, but also those that appear following remediation of the activity system

that accompanies the integration of Moodle into the practices of subjects.


9

2.1 Exploring the primary contradiction within each element of the teachers’ activity system

Researchers who have used the primary contradiction concept to study work practices have

described it as an opposition between “managerial logic” and “professional logic”. They

showed how it could be embodied in different professions, for example, engineering

(Blackler, Crump, & McDonald, 1999), architecture (Groleau et al., 2011) and medicine

(Groleau & Mayère, 2009), by analyzing the tensions stemming from this contradiction.

However, most scholars who have used CHAT contradictions as an analytical framework did

not describe the manifestations of the primary contradiction in each elements of the studied

activity system. For instance, Deken and Lauche studied the development of a technology by

several enterprises by looking directly at the quaternary contradictions between the different

organizations collaborating together (Deken & Lauche, 2010).

It should be remembered that, according to Engeström, the primary contradiction is

essentially economic in nature, since it is founded on the opposition between the use value of

the product or service, which exists to meet needs and its exchange value, i.e., its commercial

potential. The primary contradiction has a latent form, with the result that it is impossible to

have direct access to it in our empirical study. Therefore, we must approach it via its

manifestations in the discourse and actions of the players involved. In the activities of the

teachers that we have studied, the primary contradiction appears as tensions between the

different competing concerns. In this case, these are tensions between the professional and

managerial lines of thought that modulate the teachers’ activity. The opposition of these two

poles produces paradoxes, dilemmas and incongruities within each element of the teachers’

activity system, as shown in Figure 2.


10

Figure 2 Tensions in each element of the teachers’ activity system

Although university, as an institution, has existed since the Middle Ages, it is not immune to

the cultural and economic transformations that occur in this day and age. Current

developments in the Western university sector are following a path marked by global

competition, reduced state involvement, underfunding and restructuring. Some have also

described this transformation as a move toward “academic capitalism”, which obliges

universities to meet the demands of the market by setting up performance-oriented

governance and assessment instruments (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). In Canada, public

institutions such as universities have to deal with major deficits and budget cuts. Therefore,

the studied university faces the primary contradiction opposing a limited access to resources

to a need for sophisticated and specialized means to conduct higher education activities

Mintzberg described the university as an example of professional bureaucracy characterized

by considerable autonomy of the teacher (Mintzberg, 1979). However, the teacher does not

escape the tensions between the manager imperatives and the conduct of his professional

activities. The University seeks to improve its performance, especially that of its members,

by standardizing the management processes. The techniques and vocabulary related to Total

Quality Management are being increasingly used in higher education institutions

(Schwartzman, 1995), where it is now common to apply the concept of quality standards,

value creation, strategic plans and best practices. In order to be operationalized and

evaluated, these best practices must be standardized and monitored. These managerial


11

processes to a large extent adapt the context of the action and resources to employee

availability. Hence, the teacher1—the subject of this activity system—faces the tension

between managerial and professional lines of thought manifesting as an authority/autonomy

paradox, which has been described in the organization literature as the “control paradox”

(Hatch & Erhlich, 1993). On the one hand, he has certain rights, such as freedom of action

and thought, which distinguishes him from other types of workers. People have confidence in

his ability to determine the best way to carry out his work. On the other hand, this

authority/autonomy paradox puts the subject in a particular position where “academic

freedom” comes with constraints related to employee status within an institution that pays

him and requires him to have a certain level of performance in order to meet performance

objectives. Among others, we expect that teachers will master the new pedagogical strategies,

including the use of learning technology. These skills, even if they have not been formally

expressed in job descriptions or work contracts, are associated with the “best practices”

desired by managers. The tensions produced by the authority/autonomy paradox are

expressed by teachers in their discourse when they talk about the pressures they feel,

especially those who have not integrated ICT into their teaching. Computer support team

members at the University also observe this tension in certain teachers, who are major

specialists in their respective fields, but also often puzzled by the use of computer tools.

Teachers who are less comfortable with the technological tools provided by the University

may be unfavourably compared with their more advanced colleagues by both administration

and students.

The incarnation of the primary contradiction within the object of the teachers’ activities

results in a dilemma for the teacher, which leads him to consider the student as a client or

learner. By this very fact, the teacher, in his capacity, is torn between two positions with

regard to his role that of a service provider and of a partner in the student’s learning. Between

1978 and 2008, the proportion of operating revenues from Canadian universities dropped

from 84% to 58% for government subsidies, and increased from 12% to 35% for tuition fees

(ACPPU, 2011). Given this trend, it is not surprising to see that a university education is

being considered more and more as a provision of a service in which the “product” of the

university, namely the degrees or the university credits, has an exchange value. This gives the

student the status of independent client with the freedom to choose a “tailored” product that

1 In this case study, “teachers” refer to both professors and lecturers.


12

corresponds to his needs and means. Since he pays tuition fees and receives loans that must

be repaid, the student, expects a “return on his investment”. As part of this view, learning is

akin to a quasi-commercial transaction and the student’s role is reduced to a contractual

dimension. On the one hand, the administration expects teachers to have uniform operational

skills, and, on the other hand, the student also compares the “services” offered by the different

courses for which he registers. When the “offer” does not suit him, he will let people know.

Teachers who do not integrate ICT into their teaching are pressured by their students who

believe this is a service that they are rightfully owed. In fact, students believe it is unfair that

some of them can have a course with a teacher who provides digital resources, while others

cannot, even though they are all paying the same tuition.

For the purposes of this article2, I will now focus the analysis on the instruments, examining

how the tension between managerial and professional imperatives is embodied in the

uniformization/diversity paradox, which manifests itself in the different ways of seeing the

technologies provided by the University to teachers. Indeed, these technologies can be looked

at in two ways, depending on whether an administrative or professional perspective is used.

On the one hand, they can be considered to be work tools that meet the homogenous

requirements identified by businesses supplying them to the University. These suppliers are

looking for similarities in the work processes of their clients in order to offer them a generic

solution based on an “average and standard model of their clients’ needs” (Cardon, 2005) so

that the product appeals to the largest possible market. This vision fits well with technologies

such as the telecommunication infrastructure or the video equipment used in classroom.

However, technologies such as a learning platform mediate the relationship between the

teachers and their object in a particular way. Teachers use it to create and share learning

activities and resources and communicate with their students, in situated pedagogical and

organizational contexts. When a learning platform plays an important role in the teacher’s

activity, it becomes its extension: the mean by which his/her voice circulates. Therefore, it

should be flexible enough to accommodate heterogeneous and ever changing work practices.

In all, the primary contradiction appears here in an uniformization/diversity paradox, since

technology can be both a generic work tool made standard through the commercial offering

and a tool that meets specific pedagogical needs.

2 In my thesis submitted in September 2012, I explain in more detail how the primary contradiction looks like in

other elements of the teachers’ activity system.


13

2.2 Understanding the transformation process through secondary, tertiary and quaternary contradictions

After carrying out a literature review of the articles published by researchers who used

activity theory, Foot and Groleau (2011) noticed that most researchers who use the concept of

contradictions do not apply the four levels proposed by Engeström, thereby overlooking the

forces of change specific to each of these levels. It is worth mentioning that secondary

contradictions take on the form of concrete problems as tensions arise between the elements

of the activity system, i.e.., between the vertices of the triangle identified by number 2 in

Figure 1. It is the secondary contradictions that lead subjects to question and change their

practices, since they provide opportunities for subjects to analyze their activities to try to

solve the resulting problems (Groleau et al., 2011). In other words, a new activity

configuration has developed out of the contradictions inherent to the previous configuration.

In our case, the tension related to the primary contradiction regarding the manner in which to

consider work tools translates into a secondary contradiction in which the “administrative”

view of the tool goes against the teachers’ object. Indeed, the model specific to the proprietary

software that prevailed with WebCT, the platform used before Moodle, produced concrete

tensions in the teachers’ activities. The lack of flexibility in the WebCT platform and the

dependency on the company that markets it limits the possibilities of the subjects in carrying

out their work. The diversity in the teachers’ work context and objectives generates

heterogeneous needs, which, combined with the autonomy characterizing their work, lead to a

strong demand for customization of the instruments. Since the University developers did not

have access to the source code for this software, local adaptation was impossible without the

supplier involvement. Most of the time, requests were rejected by the supplier because they

were specific to the University and did not cover the needs common to several of its clients.

In order for a request to be accepted, the University had to prove to the supplier that its need

was not unique, which was often impossible to do. Even in cases where requests involved

more than one client, it was very difficult to have any control at all regarding the company’s

development schedule. Since the platform could not be fully adapted to the context at the

University, the University had to implement procedures to standardize the practices of its

teachers, forcing them to “live with the system by default” (Pollock & Cornford, 2004). In

the words of a developer, the University makes do with being a WebCT client, at the mercy of

the decisions made by the proprietary company.


14

In this regard, the Moodle open source solution was considered by the subjects as an

alternative that could potentially ease these tensions. The open source model was seen as a

way to provide teachers with a flexible solution that would better suit their heterogeneous

needs, as expressed by a vice-provost:

Proprietary tools force teachers to restrict their pedagogic methods to a commercial offer. We wanted to join an open community in which everyone could contribute in order to progress more quickly.

By adopting an open source platform, the University borrows specific properties from an

external activity system (the open source community) to re-configure its activity in order to

solve some of its inner tensions. At the basis, free software is an application whose source

code can be read, modified, re-used and redistributed by anyone. It was Richard Stallman

who first proposed the term “free software”, and who popularized since 1984 what we could

qualify as the “political movement of free software” by founding the Free Software

Foundation (FSF) (Stallman, 1992). This trend is based on the statements made by the FSF

and represents the most radical and libertarian view originating from Stallman’s ideas. His

refusal of any form of copyright is seen by many free software players as an obstacle to

deploying free software in a company. Among them, Eric S. Raymond and Bruce Perens

instead recommended the expression Open Source Software, which puts emphasis on the

development method for this software, based on the accessibility of the code that allows

anyone to retrieve it and adapt it as he sees fit (Perens, 1999). It seems that this development

model fosters the creation of a community that has the development of software at heart, since

“each person working on it is certain that his work will benefit all, in the same way that that

person will benefit from everybody else’s work” (Perline & Noisette, 2004).

When we introduce elements from another activity system (the open source community for

Moodle) into the central activity system (the University), material and social mediations

reinvent themselves in the central system. This external activity system provides several

representations and ways to see the technological development process within the University,

firstly regarding the organization of work for Moodle management. Indeed, the

implementation of Moodle in the University under study involves reconfiguring the division

of tasks, which reflects that the pedagogical tools belong to the teachers rather than the

programmers. Unlike several open source communities, which are primarily made up of

programmers from the IT world, the Moodle community comprises mainly teachers and

developers working in the educational sector. The platform was originally created by a Ph.D.


15

student in Education in Australia, and then developed through contributions from users

around the world, i.e., teachers or developers in the field of education. It is interesting to note

that its implementation in the University under study is part of the same paradigm, so that

reconfiguration of the division of tasks occurred, as noted by one of the internal developers:

(…)WebCT had always belonged to the IT division, and it is not normal for an online learning product to be identified as belonging to the IT division. (…) Moodle is one of the rare products that does not belong to anyone (…) It is as though it belongs to everyone but no one at the same time. And this I believe is the first time at the University that a product does not come under a specific division. The IT division installs Moodle. The faculties use it, and budgets are allocated by a committee.

The committee in question is made up of teachers from each faculty, a student and

representatives from the different service divisions, who make recommendations to the vice-

rector who approves its budgets. This organizational combination results in “end users” of the

platform being at the heart of the decision-making process with the Committee members

being seen as representatives and spokespeople for their colleagues. Thus, the management

and development of Moodle at the University departs from the regular model where computer

tools are strictly managed by one or more administrative divisions. By setting up Moodle in

the University, the idea has also been adopted that the platform must “belong to everyone, but

to no one at the same time”, since this way is more suitable for a product used in teaching.

This clearly shows that the collaborative culture specific to the free software development

modes is gradually becoming “paradigmatic” (Proulx, 2011). This paradigm makes certain

representations available to members of the organization when they envision a way to design,

manage and support technical tools. These representations migrate and are transposed into

the organization’s universe in which open source acts as a “metaphor” for the collaborative

ideal.

Moreover, accessibility of the Moodle source code enables developers to have better visibility

regarding the internal functioning of the tool and to change it even after its implementation

based on any problems or needs that crop up while the teachers integrate it into their practice.

This new option has changed their way of responding to user requests. Although teachers

who use Moodle cannot directly work in the source code, they take part all the same in

customizing it by interacting with the developers who have access to it. It is important to

point out that there were no formal initiatives to put users and developers in contact before

and after implementation to foster participation in the customization of the tool (besides the


16

teachers who are Committee members). Discussions arose rather when users encountered a

problem or when they tried unsuccessfully to find a way of doing something specific with

Moodle.

Although most of the teachers interviewed did not know that Moodle is open source or did not

understand what code accessibility allows, those who used WebCT before saw the difference

in their interactions with the developers. This was also expressed by a developer:

(…) When the user speaks with us, we see the situation. We do not say “leave it to me, I don’t really know” and call him back three or four days later leaving the user insecure because we have not giving him the information within a reasonable time. When we access the source code, it is fun overall… we can modify and adapt it, we can think about it, and it is nice because of that (…) When the user speaks with us, we spring into action, even while talking with the user, we are solving the problem. Whereas with proprietary code, we can just receive (…) we have nothing to say to the user because we, ourselves, are on shaky ground for finding the problem. It is another way of working… another way of doing.

Thus, open source code provides an ideal context for continuous adjustments, unlike the lack

of transparency of proprietary software, which made internal developers dependent on an

intermediary (the supplier), who “blocked”, as it were, the ability to act and respond.

Opening the Moodle source code allows in-house developers to more easily identify problems

reported by users. This post-implementation meeting place between developers and users is

described in more detail in Section 3.

Developers also reiterated that they had the impression of being able to provide better service

to users than at the time of WebCT. However, access alone to the source code does not

guarantee improved service to users. The greater malleability of the tool’s material properties

means nothing if developers do not have the autonomy needed to take action to fulfill

requests. We observed that developers had a relative level of autonomy in decision-making,

at least in most cases. They can indeed take the initiative to make certain changes without

requiring Committee approval. The cases submitted to the Committee are those requiring

additional resources or “political support” to drive things forward for areas where developers

do not have formal powers themselves.

These examples show how subjects can take inspiration from an external system to alleviate

certain tensions in their own environment. However, these transformations can also create


17

tensions between the new and old elements of the activity, which are known as tertiary

contradictions. These appear as tensions between the new practices and institutionalized

practices (see Figure 1 earlier in this document).

In particular, the greater autonomy of the University developers, along with increased co-

configuration possibilities that allow them to adapt Moodle based on the needs of users,

contributes to introducing a “demand-driven culture” in which the informal rule guiding the

work of developers is “if you can help a user, you should”. By this very fact, it also increases

the workload of developers who before would send their user requests to the supplier. In-

house developers work for an institution that provides limited human and material

resources bound by rules and a certain division of labour inherent at the University.

Therefore, these constraints can be inconsistent with the new possibilities of open source,

which multiplies the opportunities for action, and, in turn, the responsibilities and tasks to be

carried out.

In addition, the reconfiguration of the central activity system may result in quaternary

contradictions that manifest themselves as tensions with the surrounding activity systems.

Indeed, even if the activity system is the unit of analysis of the activity theory, it cannot be

studied as an isolated, autonomous system, since each of its elements is the product or aim of

a neighbouring activity system (see Figure 1 earlier in this article). We can illustrate this

inconsistency by examining an example of tension between the system of the University

under study and that of the open source community in charge of the official version of

Moodle. Although a proposal was adopted by the Committee to the effect that everything

developed at the University was to be shared with the Moodle community, the developers did

not systematically include their local changes or additions so that they would be integrated

into the “official” version managed by the community via the Moodle.org Web site. The

developers told us that contributions to the community take considerable time and

effort: firstly, it is necessary for University developers to closely follow the standards

recommended by the community, and, secondly, to document their changes and additions

when they include them. However, this process is too time-consuming and the developers do

not have enough time to ensure that their modifications are coded as per Moodle standards.

This compromises the compatibility of the local Moodle version with that of the community,

since the new “official” versions do not integrate these local changes, which must be recoded

each time in-house. Thus, accessibility to source code fosters a certain plurality of uses by


18

allowing the accumulation of “local” differences” in the tool, but encompasses other

contradictions on a global level.

3. Uncovering a specific form of co-configuration One of the contributions of this research is to identify the singularities related to the

interactions between users and developers after implementing an open source solution within

the organization that decided to carry out by itself the support and customization of this

solution, whereas the organization’s main activities are not related to software development in

itself. The co-configuration process here involves a solution that already exists, which was

chosen by the organization that decided to implement it, because its “standard” form meets

the “basic needs” of its employees, while being sufficiently “open” to allow for changes. In-

house co-configuration practices aim to model this technology so as to create a local version

that is better adapted to the context in which the employees us it. They appear as a

continuous “user service” rather than a design method. They therefore need an

implementation context in which developers who can modify the technology remain in

contact with users not only at the time of implementation, but throughout the life of the user

organization in order to see the actual needs and problems cropping up over time.

This form of co-configuration differs from that described by Engeström (2004) and Victor

and Boynton (1998), who examined situations in which suppliers had in their best interest to

work with their clients in order to create the solution to meet their specific needs. In their

case, co-configuration is considered to be an appropriate business strategy for responding to

the complex realities of the new economy. It takes shape through the partnership relationship

between suppliers and their clients. The co-configuration process that we described in this

study takes place in a different organizational context. This is why we call it “intra-

organizational” co-configuration. This is not a case of supplier-client relations, but rather

interactions between developers and users who are in fact colleagues from different teams

within the same organization. Whereas Hasu and Engeström (2000) focused on the time when

the technology is transferred from developers to users, who belong to their own organization

respectively, in our case, there is no “passing” from one group to another, since they continue

to work together following implementation. Although we find similar dynamics to those in

the supplier-client relationship (since developers provide support for the tool used by

teachers), collaboration between them does not take place in a business relationship in which


19

it would be formally carried out. In fact, the co-configuration process that we studied is

characterized by emergence, self-organization and adaptation. Collaboration between users

and developers takes shape without any central authority or formal rules governing it. It

comes out of the interactions between colleagues on an ad hoc and unplanned basis. In this

way, it is a type of employee-driven innovation.

Opening the code plays a prominent role in the co-configuration practices described here by

creating favourable conditions for establishing tighter links between the computer

development activities and uses. By increasing the ability of developers to act, access to the

code creates a more favourable context for taking into account user requests. The incremental

nature of changes made locally assures that developers can accommodate certain very specific

and even unique needs while meeting the standard needs of the majority of employees within

the organization. As well, I have seen several situations in which the developer decided to

meet the need of the teacher even if it was not a “universal” need, because he was able to do

so, was interested in the challenge and it did not require much time. When the change was

made quickly, developers put it in their tasks themselves and did not have to have the decision

validated by their superiors or the Committee, as a developer explains below:

If we believe that it will take one hour and it will not disrupt much and it will help out the teacher, we will do it (…) Anything that can be done informally, if it will not take too long, and if it is technically possible, we will do it.

Through the requests made by the teachers, developers see a wide variety of their practices,

which vary based on their respective area of teaching, the pedagogical strategies they

recommend, as well as on the division of tasks specific to a faculty or a program of study.

Here, we note the example of a faculty in which the role of coordinator was given to a

professor who taught a course given simultaneously by several teachers (this role does not

exist in other faculties). The coordinator must ensure that all teachers giving the course use

the standardized pedagogical resources, since most of the evaluations are common among all

course groups. In particular, the same exam is administered to all students taking the course,

regardless of whom the teacher is. The coordinator is responsible for creating and

maintaining a meta-course on Moodle, i.e., a shared site that can be accessed by all students in

all course groups. Thus, the student has access to two Moodle sites: the course site of his

teacher and the meta-course of the coordinator. The specific responsibilities of the

coordinator require different permissions from those normally granted to teachers. To meet


20

this specific need, the University developers created a “coordinator” role in Moodle, and then

added a function for them called “Tool for Course Coordinator”. Here, this specific division

of tasks remains invisible to the developers until a user tries to take an action made necessary

by his coordinator responsibilities and realizes that tool cannot be used for a given use. For

the coordinator, it would have been difficult to communicate this information to developers

before implementing Moodle, since he would have been able to see the possibilities or

constraints of the tool regarding this specific need. This need became concrete only when this

faculty noticed that Moodle could and should be used to support the distribution of

standardized pedagogical resources in coordinated courses after certain coordinators were

able to try out Moodle and understand how it worked.

In short, the type of co-configuration described here is an iterative process based on

compromises between what the employees would like to do, what the tool allows them to do,

and what the organization wants them to do with the tool. Consequently, the University

developers organize their practices based on the flexibility provided by the accessible source

code and the organizational latitude they have, which appears as a certain level of autonomy

when making technical decisions.

IT system designers and managers can take inspiration from this informal co-configuration

process and the new possibilities for action from the open source code solutions in order to

relieve tensions in their own activities, even if they occur in different organizational contexts.

Since intra-organizational co-configuration involves incremental micro-innovations, it is not

designed to bring about drastic changes to the tool. Nevertheless, this organizational form has

a certain potential for improving the technical services to support work practices that are

highly heterogeneous and scalable in order to better manage their diversity. The experimental

opportunities in a real work context and the interactions between the users and developers

provide a context conducive to self-examination by the players of the tensions that

characterize their respective practices. They, in a way, authorize the players to share what

they have learnt about their experiences, whether it involves problems, errors or incongruity,

at a time when they deem it relevant to do so. Moreover, the AGILE method, which has

become increasingly popular today, is based on the idea that software development must

occur iteratively (Beck, 2001). Instead of planning all development phases ahead of time and

launching the finished product once all phases have been completed, an initial version is

quickly launched that is then continuously to improve over mini-cycles of successive


21

development (known as “sprints” in the AGILE method) during which feedback is asked from

all stakeholders, including end users. This iterative approach goes hand in hand with the idea

according to which innovation may best be seen as a continuous process, with particular

product embodiments simply being arbitrary points along the way (von Hippel & Tyre, 1995).

However, it appears important to specify that the co-configuration practices described in this

article cannot replace participatory design or AGILE development methods, since these

methods are concerned with the involvement of users in previous design phases. They can

however be improved by positioning the co-configuration as a post-implementation service.

Instead of creating, we redevelop, adjust, expand, add, etc. Therefore, I propose considering

the intra-organizational configuration as a user service rather than a design methodology. This

proposal differs therefore from those already existing using participatory design approaches.

Although the ethnographic studies that often constitute the basis of participatory design

approaches are needed to take user needs into consideration, the fact remains that they can

only bear witness to current practices. However, teachers’ practices have not been established

once and for all: they will continue to evolve as tensions are resolved in their activities, to the

point that tool customization cannot stop past a certain phase if the emerging social structures

are to be supported. Positioning co-configuration as a service enables the organization to

recognize that it is impossible to see how the tool and its related practices will evolve and that

it is therefore necessary to adapt its organizational structures so as to initiate and facilitate

collaboration between users and developers throughout the life of the tool. This also allows to

accept the error value by admitting at the outset that the starting points are only methods for

getting the project underway and that it will be necessary to reconsider these methods once

the tool has been integrated into the practices. This means that it is necessary to not only seek

to fill the gap between users and developers at the time of design, but to continue to do so

when the user activity develops along with the technology. In their advocacy of the

importance of the human intentionality concept put forward in activity theory, Kaptelinin and

Nardi (2006) proposed giving users the ability to customize their tools themselves, by, for

example, using the potential of initiatives such as end-user programming (Lieberman, 2000).

Instead, I am proposing that we view co-configuration as a user service, so that users are not

left to their own devices and can benefit from the skills of developers.

We have seen that developers felt that they were giving users better service since they had

access to the software source code. In this way, open source is a way for the organization to

increase its ability to support future uses and adopt a “sustainable development” perspective


22

in IT. The connection between the past, present and future is key to sustainable development,

which aims to better meet the present needs while not compromising the possibility of future

generations to meet their needs (World Commission on Environment and Development,

1987). In addition to the ability to adapt the tool to future needs, sustainable IT development

goes hand in hand with the responsible use of public funds. Even if universities are

competing to recruit “student clients”, they should not be competing for the tools they are

using. Thus, it seems illogical that each university should pay enormous sums so that the

supplier of proprietary software makes a change to its product, when these developments

could be pooled so that several universities would share the costs. In this way, adopting open

source code software may be an opportunity for universities to join forces and share the costs

of developing and customizing their tools. Responsible and sustainable management of

sociotechnical resources based on re-using, sharing and improving open solutions should

become a main priority of university administrations. The case that we studied is a striking

example of the need for this type of approach, and of its feasibility.

4. Discussion

By replacing WebCT by Moodle, an open source code platform, the University under study

takes the social and technical properties specific to a given external system, i.e., the

community developing and using it. These new resources and ways of doing and thinking

about things help resolve certain in-house tensions and drive change. The attachment to the

values of free software does not necessarily mean the effective, unilateral adoption of a static

model, as we have seen when we discussed the reconfiguration of the work of the University

developers. The open source code software is also not seen as the definitive solution to all

problems. Nevertheless, the integration into the open source movement provides greater

access to possible alternatives.

From a conceptual perspective, the contradictions model not only allows to use the activity

theory as a descriptive tool, but especially use it dynamically to analyze the transformation of

the activity system following the introduction of Moodle. The activity theory, like with other

approaches that allow organizational change, view change as a process, i.e., a sequence of

events around which the transformation of practices revolves. Adopting a CHAT-based

analysis of contradictions means that the problems and disturbances faced by the subjects in

situation reflect the historically formed systemic contradictions of the activity.


23

The analysis that we have carried out shows that the manifestations of primary contradiction

can be identified in each element of teachers’ activity. In our case, we are able to identify

economic tensions where we did not expect them. Indeed, although the main purpose of a

public institution, such as a university, is not to generate profits or create value for

shareholders, the tensions linked to the opposition between management and professional

imperatives are clearly presented in the teachers’ activities to the point of interfering in its

various elements. The entrepreneurial model that prevails in business organizations is also

used in public institutions such as universities, which have to manage their material and

human resources based on “good management practices”. Thus, the teacher activity system

shows a growing trend of considering the student as a client and treating teaching as a

commodity, which produces tensions in the form of paradoxes and dilemmas in each element

of their activity system.

In interventionist research, the identification of contradictions in an activity system helps

participants to focus their effort on the root causes of problems. But when used as an

analytical tool, as was the case in this study, the researcher focuses on the way in which the

contradictions are experienced by the subjects themselves as their activity system is

reconfigured through changing circumstances and the introduction of new elements. Even

without the involvement of a researcher, the resulting contradictions and paradoxes can be

understood by the players as a way of reframing their experiences and therefore leading to

organizational changes. By identifying these contradictions, the researcher in a way expands

his field of vision: instead of only studying the tensions and their effects in the “here and

now”, he also turns his attention to the roots and origins of the problems, which enable him, in

turn, to understand why certain changes cannot be fully brought to fruition. With the different

levels of contradictions, we can better understand the dynamics inherent in the transformation

process and the links between the new patterns of interaction and the institutionalized

practices, as well as the implications for the neighbouring activity systems.

There is an opportunity for activity theorists to show how their conceptualization can be used

to enrich and precise the vocabulary and approaches available to scholars studying innovation

and change in organizations in order to clearly define the relation between contradictions and

other type of tensions. For instance, the practice perspective, though now well established in

organization studies, can still benefit from the development of vocabularies and approaches


24

that allow the transcendence of the division between the various levels of analysis (micro,

meso, macro). While the orthodox language of social science, including organization studies,

carves up phenomena into three levels: from the very micro (what people say and do); to the

meso (routines); to the macro (institutions), the concept of practices calls for an

understanding of practice as taking place simultaneously ‘here and now’ as well as

historically constituted (Miettinen, Samra-Fredericks, & Yanow, 2010). Because there is no

such thing as a single and unified theory of practice, practices can be approached from a

variety of theories, such as activity theory, which allow organizational scholars study a living

practice and relate it to its history and to its larger institutional context. In that sense, a

”CHAT contradictions-based” analysis provides a comprehensive framework that enables the

researcher to take into account the sociohistorical constructs undergoing tension that come

from different levels: the government through its policies, the professional context that

stipulates certain methods and the specific organizational context with its own rules.

As for primary contradictions, Miettinen (2009) had already suggested that the open source

model questioned the opposition between the exchange value and the use value, since many

believe that this model has the potential to question certain aspects of capitalism. At the end

of our research, we considered it rather as a model that had found its place “in spite of” and

“along with” the ever-dominant capitalist model. Von Hippel and von Krogh (2003) had

already described the possible hybridizations between this collective development model and

the private models traditionally recommended by companies. Moreover, the case that we

studied shows this form of hybridity, since it comprises methods inspired by collectives that

develop free software and managerial imperatives inherent to the institutional context of the

user organization. However, what appears to be especially interesting to us in our research

does not concern so much the economic aspects of open source, but rather its potential to

rethink other aspects of activity related to the development and use of work technology.

Indeed, open source represents a paradigm change not only regarding the way in which

software is developed and marketed, but also how it is deployed and maintained, especially

concerning the interactions between users and developers after implementation. In light of

these observations, it would appear necessary to go beyond the strictly economic nature of the

primary contradiction. Based on Blackler (1993), I believe that the tensions that human

activity entails is rooted in other sociohistorical constructs than this opposition between the

exchange value and the use value. Thus, even if this dimension remains relevant, reducing

the analysis to a strictly economic contradiction does not allow to explain how certain


25

changes come about in the daily practices of the players. Since work tools convey ways of

thinking, acting and accomplishing the tasks of their designers, the fact of adopting a tool that

can be modified increases the ability to do things that may have not been initially foreseen.

The open source culture takes into account the ability of subjects and tools to develop

together for more and more complex purposes. In the case that we studied, the visibility of

Moodle’s source code by internal developers makes it easier for them to “locate problems”.

Its openness enhances their ability to meet their needs and thus adapts the nature of their

interactions. At a time when rules and standards are increasingly institutionalized in technical

devices, if they are more flexible and open, it enables users to participate not only in the

development of their tools, but also of their work practices. In this way, greater transparency

of the internal workings of open source tools is but one answer to an economic problem.

Tensions that are at the source of innovations are not just the outcomes of the contradiction

between the exchange value and the use value. In addition to the economic dimension, there is

also a political dimension related to the different forms of worker autonomy, as well as to the

creativity, resistance and reflexivity that these workers may use with regard to their work

tools.


26

5. References ACPPU. 2011. Section 1: Financement, Almanach de l'enseignement postsecondaire de

l’ACPPU 2010-2011.

Beck, K. e. a. 2001. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Agile Alliance.

Blackler, F. 1993. Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity systems and the reframing of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6): 863-884.

Blackler, F., Crump, N., & McDonald, S. 1999. Managing Experts and Competing through Innovation: An Activity Theoretical Analysis. Organization, 6(1): 5-31.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. 1988. Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn, & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management: 1-18. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.

Cardon, D. 2005. Innovation par l'usage. In A. Ambrosi, V. Peugeot, & D. Pimienta (Eds.), Enjeux de mots : regards multiculturels sur les sociétés de l’information: C & F Éditions.

Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V. D., & Cunha, M. P. E. 2002. Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5): 483-503.

Deken, F., & Lauche, K. 2010. Expansive Learning And New Practice Creation: A Conceptualization Collaborating In Inter-Organizational Product Innovation. Second International Symposium on Process Organization Studies.

Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1): 133-156.

Engeström, Y. 2004. New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2): 11-21.

Engeström, Y. 2005. Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice: Lehmanns Media.

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. 2011. Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3): 368-387.

Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M., Smith, W., & Tracey, P. 2013. Special Issue on Paradox, Tensions and Dualities of Innovation and Change - Call for papers. Organization Studies.


27

Fernández-Alles, M., & Valle-Cabrera, R. 2006. Reconciling institutional theory with organizational theories: How neoinstitutionalism resolves five paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4): 503-517.

Foot, K. A., & Groleau, C. 2011. Contradictions, transitions, and materiality in organizing processes: An activity theory perspective. First Monday, 16(6).

Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2011. Complexity Arrangements for Sustained Innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies(32): 737-767.

Groleau, C., Demers, C., Lalancette, M., & Barros, M. 2011. From Hand Drawings to Computer Visuals: Confronting Situated and Institutionalized Practices in an Architecture Firm. Organization Science, 22(3).

Groleau, C., & Mayère, A. 2009. Médecins avec ou sans frontière : contradiction et transformation des pratiques professionnelles. Sciences de la société(76): 102-119.

Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2006. A collective action model of institutional innovation. The Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 864-888.

Hasu, M., & Engeström, Y. 2000. Measurement in action: an activity-theoretical perspective on producer-user interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(1): 61-89.

Hatch, M. J., & Erhlich, S. B. 1993. Spontaneous humour as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(4): 505.

Hundsnes, T., & Meyer, C. B. 2006. Living with paradoxes of corporate strategy: A complexity perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4): 437-446.

Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. 2006. Acting with technology: activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760-776.

Lieberman, H. (Ed.). 2000. Your Wish Is My Command: Giving Users the Power to Instruct Their Software. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Miettinen, R. 2009. Contradictions of High-Technology Capitalism and the Emergence of New Forms of Work. In A. L. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory: 160-175. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredericks, D., & Yanow, D. 2010. Re-Turn to Practice: An Introductory Essay. Organization Studies, 30(12): 1309–1327.

Mintzberg, H. 1979. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


28

Perens, B. 1999. The Open Source Definition. In C. DiBona, S. Ockman, & M. Stone (Eds.), Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution: 171-188. Sebastopol: O'Reilly.

Perline, & Noisette, T. 2004. La bataille du logiciel libre : dix clés pour comprendre. Paris: La Découverte.

Pollock, N., & Cornford, J. 2004. ERP systems and the university as a "unique" organization. Information Technology & People, 17(1): 31-52.

Proulx, S. 2011. La puissance d'agir d'une culture de la contribution face à l'emprise d'un capitalisme informationnel: premières réflexions, Colloque Culture et barbarie: communication et société contemporaine. Hommage à Edgar Morin. Athènes.

Putnam, L. L. 1986. Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization-communication: Emerging perspectives: 151-167. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Schwartzman, R. 1995. Students as Customers: A Mangled Managerial Metaphor. Carolinas Speech Communication Association Convention

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Press.

Stallman, R. 1992. Why software should be free. In T. W. Bynum, & S. Rogerson (Eds.), Computer Ethics and Professional Responsability: 294: Blackwell Publishing.

Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. 2003. Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 397-415.

Victor, B., & Boynton, A. C. 1998. Invented here: Maximizing your organization's internal growth and profitability: Harvard Business Press.

von Hippel, E., & Tyre, M. J. 1995. How learning by doing is done: Problem identification in novel process equipment. Research Policy(24): 1-12.

von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. 2003. Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science. Organization Science, 14(2): 209-223.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future

Contradictions and their concrete manifestations: an activity ...

Documents

Transcript of Contradictions and their concrete manifestations: an activity ...